PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
On: 11 October 2008
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 772815468] Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433220
Review Essay: A Scrutiny of Akçam's Version of History and the Armenian
Genocide
Erman ahin
Online Publication Date: 01 August 2008
To cite this Article ahin, Erman(2008)'Review Essay: A Scrutiny of Akçam's Version of History and the Armenian Genocide',Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs,28:2,303 — 319
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13602000802303235 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602000802303235
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Review Essay: A Scrutiny of Akc¸am’s Version of History
and the Armenian Genocide
ERMAN S¸ AHI˙N
A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility
TANER AKC¸ AM, translated from Turkish by PAUL BESSEMER, 2006 New York: Metropolitan Books
xþ376 pp., notes to p. 464, index to p. 483, $30.00 (hardcover), ISBN: 0-8050-7932-7
Abstract
The tragic fate of the Ottoman Armenians during World War I, the massacres that accompanied their forced migration, and the role of the Committee of Union and Progress—the ruling faction in the Ottoman government during World War I— constitute one of the murkiest chapters in the modern history of the Middle East. This article argues that those who have dealt with this complex subject have not always respected the limits set by scholarly ethics and have failed to use their sources scrupulously while engaging in distortions, deliberate quoting out of context and doctoring of data. At this point Taner Akc¸am’s book, translated and distributed by the Zoryan Institute, deserves particular attention, and therefore it is essential to examine this work with a closer scrutiny by checking and comparing the original sources utilized by the author. The article will illustrate this point by a case study presenting the discrepancies between the texts preserved in the original sources and those presented by the author in his work.
Introduction
This book, dealing with the Armenian Question, is a substantially revised English version of the author’s earlier book,I˙nsan Hakları ve Ermeni Sorunu,1published in 1999. The book is welcomed by many authors including Erik Jan Zu¨ rcher who, on its back cover, wrote that Taner Akc¸am’s study is the “state of the art in this field”. Elsewhere Stephen Feinstein described it as the “best book ever written on Armenian Genocide”. Akc¸am, a sociologist often credited as the first Turkish scholar to acknowledge the “Armenian Genocide”, contends that there is no doubt that the “scale of the operations would have been impossible without planning at the political center” (p. 7). The readers would have welcomed a bibliography (a surprising omission in a heavily referenced work), tables and perhaps more than one map. However, despite revisions, the trail of errors and inconsistencies still mar the book. Moreover the influence of Vahakn N. Dadrian’s earlier findings and arguments is also visible throughout Akc¸am’s study. The book tells us little that is new, and suffers from inadequate understanding and use of sources.
The book is divided into three parts: part one discusses the Ottoman state and its non-Muslim subjects, and covers the era of the Committee of Union and Progress
ISSN 1360-2004 print/ISSN 1469-9591 online/08/020303-17#2008 Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs
DOI: 10.1080/13602000802303235
(CUP) and discusses Turkish nationalism; part two deals with the events leading to the decision for executing genocide and its aftermath; part three is devoted to investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed during the catastrophic events of 1915 – 1916. Unfortunately the book lacks a comprehensive conclusion and suffers from poor organ-ization and repetition.
Presenting the Course of Events
In discussing the massacres of the 1890s, the author does not mention the provocations carried out by the Armenian revolutionary groups that were also an important factor in bringing about Muslim attacks on the Armenians. In the second chapter the author quotes a single instance of this kind for a different occasion (p. 63). His argument, however, is not a synthesis of the evidence presented. Instead of discussing how such incidents shaped the course of events, the author prefers to limit himself to pointing out how the Turkish historiography makes use of them.
Akc¸am suggests that the Ottoman Special Organization (Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa) (OSO) has been instrumental “in implementing the Armenian genocide” (p. 59); however, the documentary evidence does not support his claims.2Moreover, in discussing the structure and the assignments of the OSO, Akc¸am incorrectly attributes a statement to Cemal Kutay (pp. 96 – 97) that was in fact made by Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı.3
In his discussion of the impact of the Muslim refugees, the author offers a simplistic and inaccurate assessment of the situation; for instance, we read that “. . . between 1878 – 1904 some 850,000 refugees were settled in predominantly Armenian areas alone” (p. 87). In fact, the research based on primary documents establishes that the great bulk of these refugees were settled in the “provinces other than Eastern Anatolia”.4In addition, such western provinces as Aydın, Hu¨ davendigar (Bursa) and Edirne (Adrianople) where the refugees were settled in significant numbers can hardly be described as being predominantly Armenian.
The author’s discussion of the Ottomans’ war aims and their entry into the war are also problematic, for these are presented in too oversimplified a framework to be accepted without an immense amount of equivocation. He maintains that the “Unionists devoted a great deal of effort toward entering the war” (p. 112). In fact, the Unionists devoted their efforts towards securing an alliance with Germany, not entering the war. By means of the alliance, they hoped to put an end to the Empire’s political isolation while at the same trying to postpone the entry into the war as much as possible before they finally suc-cumbed to German pressure for armed action. As Mustafa Aksakal, the author of a scho-larly study on the Ottoman entry into the war noted, “The Ottoman leaders hoped either to stay outside the war entirely or to enter it only in its final stages but they were equally concerned to preserve the alliance they had formed with Germany”.5 Akc¸am also asserts that by entering the war Unionists sought to pursue their “Pan-Turanist and Pan-Islamist objectives”, and would also seek an opportunity to “regain lost territories, especially in the Balkans, and seek revenge in the Christian communities” (p. 112). He also lays considerable stress on the feelings of revenge, and concludes that “it was this kind of feeling that was used to justify the killing of Armenians” (p. 117).
Reconciling Facts with Assumptions
One wonders how an administration, which not only reconciled and established an alli-ance with Bulgaria but even made territorial concessions to bring it into the war on its
own side or which conducted negotiations with Greece to form a Balkan alliance,6was able to dream about seeking revenge in the Christian communities or regaining the lost territories in the Balkans. While there is no doubt that the disastrous results of the Balkan wars had left many people with bitter feelings and painful memories, it is doubtful that the Ottoman leadership was carried away by the simplistic and emotional ideals as Akc¸am suggests. As Feroz Ahmad pointed out, the Unionists started out “with the prin-cipal aim of guaranteeing the territorial integrity and maintaining sovereignty” and showed “little concern” toward such matters as Pan-Turanism, and “there was no ques-tion of regaining Macedonia which had already proved to be an unduly expensive adven-ture”.7
The author also discusses the role and the activity of convicts, released in 1914; he refers to sources that, according to him, mention that these prisoners were “actually trained in I˙stanbul for the purpose of carrying out the Armenian genocide” (p. 136). On the other hand, he claims it is very likely that the “key decisions concerning the mas-sacre were made within the CUP in I˙stanbul during March 1915” (p. 152, and also p. 156). He provides no explanation, however, as to how the prisoners may be released and trained in 1914 for the purpose of carrying out the genocide when there was no such decision yet (to judge from Akc¸am’s own date). This is, however, only one of the many contradictions and inconsistencies that the book contains.
Akc¸am is also quite selective in his use of materials. He alleges, for instance, that “immediately after the [Sarıkamıs¸] defeat, Enver conveyed his thanks to the Armenian Patriarchate for the sacrifice and heroism of the Armenian soldiers in the war” (p. 143) on the basis of such a highly partisan account as that of Pastor Johannes Lepsius alone, and tries to support this point by referring to German Consular reports concerning the self-sacrifice shown by the Armenians (pp. 143 – 144). Yet when discussing a different matter on page 197, we read that the German consuls “reported that during the Caucasian campaign, the Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army turned their guns on the Turks”. It is, thus, quite unlikely that Enver should have ever made such a state-ment after a Caucasian campaign in which the Armenian soldiers did indeed turn their guns on the Turks.
The author’s inadequate understanding of Ottoman history also undermines the validity of his explanations. For instance, he claims there is “evidence that the [genocide] decision was made at the end of March, during the critical days of the Gallipoli Campaign” (p. 152), but the Gallipoli campaign began on 25 April 1915. Despite the firm insistence on March 1915 as the date of decision for the genocide, the author fails to provide any credible “evidence” substantiating this thesis. Enver’s remark that the threat offered by the Armenians can be quelled by removing them “from the places where they lived and sending them to other places” is, according to Akc¸am, the evidence that there was a decision for genocide in March 1915.
Akc¸am’s tendentious mode of writing and selective use of sources become even more transparent when considering his use of trial proceedings. The proceedings that are recorded in various newspapers and journals do not always conform, and at times even contradict each other. For instance, the statement and the admission he attributes to Colonel S¸ ahabettin (p. 200), which was supposedly made by S¸ ahabettin at the eighth session of the Yozgat trial, is uncorroborated by two other newspaper versions8while contradicted by a third,9all of which also gave the proceedings of the same session. In the absence of original transcripts, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy which one of these reflects a truer picture. The more recent research, therefore, casts doubt on Akc¸am’s finding as he failed to include the other relevant material.
Interpreting Archival Documents
One may also feel uneasy with Akc¸am’s treatment of Ottoman archival documents, since whenever the Ottoman documents seem to support his contentions he considers them genuine. On the other hand, when they contradict his views he consistently attempts to dismiss them as part of a conspiracy, even if they are in fact the same documents. The most striking example of this dualistic approach is given when Akc¸am relies on a “general circular from the Ministry of the Interior” (p. 204), a document he earlier dis-missed as part of a “great deception” (p. 169) in relation to the exclusion of Protestants from the relocation. Similarly, after having initially regarded the former Grand Vizier Said Halim’s statement about his non-involvement in the process of the Armenians’ relocation as convincing (p. 156), the author subsequently expresses his doubts over its sincerity (pp. 263 – 265).
Akc¸am’s discussion of the estimates regarding the Armenian deaths also stands on shaky ground. He admits that the available “estimates are based on a political agenda” (p. 183). One would not expect to see that an author who can claim this should rely on a figure given by a government that has distinguished itself with its deep enmity towards the CUP. He upholds the figure of 800,000 killed Armenians, given by Interior Minister Cemal Bey, as true. In order to increase its credibility, he also claims this figure was the “result of the commission established” by Mustafa Arif Deg˘mer but fails to adduce anything in support of this assertion. The same minister, Cemal Bey, in the same statement also declared that the CUP had annihilated four million Turks,10the very same CUP that according to Akc¸am was carrying out a policy of Turkification. Is it conceivable to maintain that these claims as well as figures were not based on a political agenda?
The author’s other claims in support of his numbers are also unconvincing or inaccurate. He relies on an ambiguous statement attributed to Mustafa Kemal in a second-hand source whilst ignoring a first-hand account in which Mustafa Kemal had rejected the figures offered by Minister Cemal as a slander (iftira).11 While the book published by the Turkish Army’s General Staff,Bu¨yu¨k Harp’te Tu¨rk Harbi[Turkish War in the Great War], was not on the “issue of the World War I losses”, its publication does not substantiate Akc¸am’s claims either; after all, it was a translation of a book published in Paris in 1926 on the history of Ottoman participation in the World War by the French author Maurice Larcher.12Yusuf Hikmet Bayur has never stated that the figure “800,000” should be considered accurate for the Armenian losses; indeed, in discussing the Armenian Question in the preceding part of his study, Bayur described Commandant M. Larcher’s account of events, which used the figure of 500,000 for the Armenian losses, as being quite exagger-ated.13Furthermore, in another work, Bayur has criticized Minister Cemal’s statement, characterizing it as the “ugliest indication” of the Damat Ferit government’s endless efforts at appeasing victorious allies.14
The author does not provide adequate discussion on the course of relocations that dif-fered depending on local circumstances as well as the attitude of local officials, and the few examples provided by Akc¸am are all carefully selected. While Akc¸am acknowledges Cemal Pasha’s efforts in favor of Armenians, he sheds little light on it.
Relying on “Key” Sources
The key source of Akc¸am’s allegations is the findings of 1919 – 1920 court-martials (as well as the indictment of the main trial), which he upholds as true. But the legal
procedures of these courts suffered from serious shortcomings, and the reliability of their findings was questionable.15 The trials were conducted under the pressure of the victorious Allies and by the post-war Ottoman governments, eager to heap any blame on the CUP in order to forestall the dismemberment of the Empire and to receive more lenient treatment from the Allies.16Commenting on this attitude of the prosecution, the late Tarık Zafer Tunaya has remarked that the prosecutor was blaming the CUP (for everything) by “beginning from the story of Eve and Adam”,17 while other scholars have also expressed their skepticism over their findings18—including M. E. Yapp who noted that the “1919 courts martial . . . cannot be taken entirely at face value because they were conducted by a government which was anxious to pin any blame on the CUP leaders”.19
According to Akc¸am’s sources, the CUP leader Cemal Pasha “had indeed tried. . .to ease the situation for the Armenian deportees” (p. 186) and yet was actually sentenced to death by these courts. Falih Rıfkı Atay, seemingly a valuable source for Akc¸am, relates how Atay had to bribe the members of these courts with an amount less than 500 Lira in order to save himself from execution, and how the decision for his execution was made even before he was tried.20Refik Halid Karay, a staunch opponent of both the Unionists and the nationalist movement in Ankara, and one who had a meeting with the judge and the members of the court over Atay’s case, confirms that the decision to execute Atay was already arranged even before a trial.21
Akc¸am cannot bring himself to admit the injustices committed by these courts; he does not even discuss the changes introduced by the Damat Ferit government, which even banned the defendants from hiring a lawyer22—a process that constitutes the most basic right of a defendant in any system. Likewise he mentions the “irregularities involving Nusret’s death sentence” (p. 354) but does not elaborate on these irregularities. The author does not refrain from relying on questionable sources either. For instance, the alleged 1926 interview of Mustafa Kemal, on which he relies (pp. 345 – 346), was proven to be false years ago.23
A Litany of Errors
For an author claiming to have mastered the subject, Akc¸am makes too many factual errors, which diminish the text’s reliability as a point of reference: The Ottoman Empire was not considered the “Sick Man of Europe” since the 1830s; the term was coined by the Russian Tsar in 1844 (p. 27). Sasun was not a Cilician village; it was in Bitlis province (p. 41). Yusuf Kemal Tengirs¸enk was not the second foreign minister of the Turkish Republic, but the second foreign minister of the Ankara Government before the Republic was proclaimed (p. 46). The last name of the Russian foreign min-ister was not Sazanov but Sazonov (pp. 98 – 99, 213 and index). Kurt Ziemke was not a historian but a diplomat (p. 118). Huseyin Cahit Yalc¸ın was not the editor of Tanin
during the war; he left Tanin in January 1914 (p. 143). Alma Johansson was not a Swiss nurse but Swedish (p. 150). Pozanti is not some 30 – 40 km from Adana but about 70 km (p. 158). Kayseri, Nig˘de and Eskis¸ehir were not provinces but sanjaks
(subdivisions of provinces) (p. 177). Interior Minister Cemal Bey’s statement was not made on 18 March 1919; it first appeared in an interview with Cemal Bey inLe Moniteur Orientalon 13 March 1919 (p. 183). The book published by the Turkish Army’s General Staff was not on the issue of World War I losses (p. 183). Hovhannes Kachaznuni was not the first president of Armenia but the first prime minister (p. 198). The governor of Van was not Cevdet Pas¸a but Cevdet Bey (p. 201). The surname of the former Van deputy
was not Avras but Arvas (pp. 201, 326 and index). The general circular from the Ministry of the Interior was not sent to all Ottoman provinces (p. 204). The Greeks did not invade I˙zmir on 16 May 1919 but on 15 May 1919 (pp. 279, 294). Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein was not a general but a colonel (p. 325). Mustafa Kemal’s statement was not made in a closed session of the parliament but in an open session (pp. 346, 348). Nusret Bey was not the prefect (kaymakam) of Urfa but the sub-governor (mutasarrıf) (p. 351). The above mistakes are not just aberrations but typify the whole book.
Lost in Translation
The translation errors represent another problem. The word “ekseriyet”, for instance, does not mean minority but majority. Therefore, the last part of the quote presented on page 97 should not read “[a]reas . . . in which non-Turkish races and nations formed aminority” but should be “[a]reas. . .in which non-Turkish races and nations formed a majority”.24 Bas¸bakanlık does not mean Presidential but the Office of the Prime Minister (p. 417, n. 65).
The translation problems are not confined to just minor ones; the book gives fundamentally different versions of events than its original Turkish. For instance, when discussing the role of Colonel Seyfi, the original Turkish version of the book provides the following information:
Following the armistice, on 13 December 1918, the dailySabahdeclared that as the officer responsible for the political department in Ottoman Military Headquarters, in close coordination with Bahaettin S¸ akir, and in collaboration with the Special Organization, Colonel Seyfi was one of those who had planned the massacre of Armenians.25
As might be seen, according to the Turkish version of the book, it is theSabahnewspaper that is making the assertion in question. However, in the present English book, this event is suspiciously rendered as a confession by Colonel Seyfi rather than a declaration by
Sabahwhile no date is given for relevant issue of the dailySabah:
After the 1918 armistice, the colonel [Seyfi] explained in the dailySabahthat, as the officer responsible for the political department in Ottoman military headquarters, in collaboration with the Special Organization and in close coordination with Unionist Bahaettin S¸ akir, he had been among those who had devised the plan for the murder of the Armenians. (p. 125)
One cannot know whether this is an intentional manipulation or an innocent (but inex-cusable) translation error, or even who is to be blamed for it: the translator or Taner Akc¸am who had revised the English text. At any rate, Akc¸am bears the responsibility for having allowed such errors to enter the text, the existence of which further under-mines the reliability of his book.
Typographical errors and inconsistencies in spelling of names further mar the book. In addition, the reader whose knowledge of the existing literature is derived from this book is likely to think that Edward J. Erickson’s painstaking study “The Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans 1912 – 1913” was released in 1972 (p. 392, n. 114) instead of 2003, or the seventh volume of the Genocide and Holocaust Studiesjournal was published in 1998 (p. 406, n. 78) instead of 1993.
Sources Distorted
Even if one is to ignore the subjectivist attitude of the author, there are more serious pro-blems with Akc¸am’s work. In preparing his book, Akc¸am appears to have altered and dis-torted the contents of the sources he has utilized.26Some examples discussed below may reiterate this point.
On the Figures Given by Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı and Celal Bayar
In discussing the deportation of Christians in Western Anatolia, Taner Akc¸am—by refer-ring to the autobiographical account of Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı (a prominent agent of the OSO)—writes that: “Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı Es¸ref claims that during the first months of the war alone the number of ‘Greek-Armenians. . . deported totaled 1,350,000’” (p. 106). In the original source, however, the number given by Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı is 1,150,000 and not 1,350,000 as incorrectly given by Akc¸am. Moreover Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı does not say they were “deported” but taken to the interior:
. . .[I]t was plainly visible that if the Greek-Armenian population in the Aegean region, concentrated especially in the coastal areas, amounting to 1,150,000, had not been taken to the interior a short time before the outbreak of the war and during the first months of the war, then even the defense in C¸ anakkale [Gallipoli] would not have been possible.27
In his note the author further claims that “Celal Bayar, who draws extensively from Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı’s memoirs, gives separate figures for specific cities. The total number of these is thesameas the figure above [i.e. 1,350,000]” (p. 403, n. 150). Yet the total of these is not 1,350,000 as the reader is told but 760,000, which is in fact close to one-half of the figure above.28 It should be further noted that, in the case of the latter figure, Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı does not speak of any relocation but rather gives the figures for the population concentration in specific regions.
On the Memoirs of A. Mil (Arif Cemil (Denker))
In a section of his book dealing with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Congress in Erzurum, Taner Akc¸am falsely puts forward claims that have no basis in the original account. He writes that:
In one document we read: “The necessary preparations have been made for those individuals . . .who have left Erzurum . . .Instructions for those things that are essential for our organization’s freedom of action should be given.” The author of this document confirmed that Bahaettin S¸ akir had wanted “those people [mentioned in the telegram] apprehended on the way and liqui-dated” (p. 137).
However in the original account, Arif Cemil (Denker) quotes a letter from Hilmi Bey, the CUP inspector for Erzurum, in which Hilmi Bey states that:
. . .The necessary preparations have been made for those individuals on whose departures from Erzurum you have informed [us] with a cipher. I have made delivery to the persons required to get them [i.e. the individuals who departed from Erzurum] regardless of anything. . .I hope to inform you on this matter in
about two days. The command post should give the necessary instructions for our organization’s freedom of action to the persons required.29
After quoting this, Arif Cemil (Denker) makes some comments on Hilmi Bey’s letter by stating that:
Two points in Hilmi Bey’s letter deserve attention. One of them is the appre-hension, more precisely the liquidation of the persons on their way, whose departures from Erzurum have been notified by Bahaettin S¸ akir.30
The original account, as might be seen, makes no mention of Bahaettin S¸ akir’s alleged demand for the liquidation of the persons in question and the only role attributed to Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey is his notifying of the mentioned individuals’ departures. It is diffi-cult to understand how Akc¸am, based on the above source, concluded that “the author of this document confirmed that Bahaettin S¸ akir had wanted those people [mentioned in the telegram] . . . liquidated”. Of minor importance is Akc¸am’s misidentification of “the author of this document”, since its author was Hilmi Bey while the one making the so-called confirmation on which Akc¸am relied was Arif Cemil.
More on the Memoirs of Arif Cemil (Denker)
In attempting to describe the alleged genocide decision, which was supposedly made during March 1915, Taner Akc¸am again deliberately distorts his evidence in order to back up his contentions:
. . .In addition to the question of the army command, fundamental changes in the Special Organization’s activities were also under discussion. “The Armenians’ anti-Turkish attitude and the help they gave the Russian army con-vinced [Bahaettin S¸ akir] that dealing with the enemy within was as necessary as the enemy without.” Having assembled evidence of Armenian gang activity in the region, S¸ akir now tried to persuade his friends in I˙stanbul that it was time to get rid of this threat.
It is very likely that the key decisions concerning the massacre were made within the CUP in I˙stanbul during March 1915. “In these discussions a decision was made that Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey would resign from his duties per-taining to the country’s foreign enemies and concentrate solely on its internal enemies.” S¸ akir was put in charge of dealing with “the Armenians inside. . .
These discussions concluded with the formulation of the Deportation Law. When Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey returned to the Caucasian front a short time later the new arrangements had been completely determined”. (pp. 151 – 152)
As his source for the sentences and phrases given within quotation marks in the above quote, Akc¸am again cites the memoirs of Arif Cemil (Denker), who served with the OSO during the War. However, this episode described by Akc¸am appears fundamentally different in the original source—which reads as follows:
In I˙stanbul now, Dr. Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey has decided to concentrate on the country’s internal enemies by abandoning the Special Organization’s affairs related to foreign enemies.
This was because Dr. Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey has witnessed many facts during the period of four-five months he has spent in Erzurum and at different points of the Caucasian front. The attitude the Armenians have taken against
Turkey and the assistance they provided to the Russian army have convinced him [Bahaettin S¸ akir] that it was necessary to fear the internal enemies as much as the external ones. TheArmenians insidethrough formation of bands were threatening the rear of our army and were trying to cut our lines of retreat.31
[. . .] In I˙stanbul Dr. Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey was busy with discussing the pre-cautions to be taken to save the army from a grave danger by placing these [documents] to the attention of the CUP’s Central Committee. These discus-sions finally resulted in the formulation of Relocation Law. When Dr. Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey returned to the Caucasian front after a while, the new situation had completely come into existence. But again we will pass on without touching these matters. Because the issue of the Armenians’ relocation wascompletely out of the O.S.O.’s scope.32[Emphasis added]
There are several problems about the way in which the author has made use of the passage given in the original account:
1. The phrase signifying that it was necessary to “fear internal enemies” is altered into a different one that reads “dealing with the enemy within” by Akc¸am.
2. Akc¸am quotes the source as saying “in these discussionsa decision was made that Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey would resign from his duties. . .”, whereas in the original source it is Bahaettin S¸ akir himself deciding to focus on internal enemies, and there is no mention of a discussion where the alleged decision for Bahaettin Sakir’s focusing on the internal enemies was taken. Thus the phrase that reads “in these discussions a decision was made that Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey would resign from his duties . . .” has no basis in the original source and was evidently doctored in an effort to give the impression of an official policy targeting the Armenians.
3. Similarly the statement that Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey was put in charge of dealing with “the Armenians inside” has no basis in the original source and the text is completely quoted out of context. The only reference to the “Armenians inside” is made in connection with their formation of bands and the threat they posed to the army. And there is simply no entry suggesting that Dr. Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey was put in charge of (or instructed for) anything. 4. Although Akc¸am quotes the source as saying “new arrangements were
com-pletely determined”, the original account contains nothing regarding “new arrangements”; rather, it states that a new situation had emerged. This manipulation, too, gives the impression of a policy targeting Armenians for which “new arrangements” were determined even though such is not the case in the original source. Moreover, it is of the utmost significance that in Akc¸am’s version a revealing section of the very document on which his case rests is missing. At the end was Arif Cemil’s statement that “the issue of the Armenians’ relocation wascompletely out of the O.S.O.’s scope”.
On Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı’s Statement
In discussing the implementation of the relocation and the massacres, the author contends that many members of the government were unaware of the genocidal policy that was secretly carried out by the party under the veil of a deportation decree. Like
Dadrian,33 Akc¸am refers to the interviews made with Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı to support this point:
As Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı put it, the government was never informed of the meetings and plans related to the deportations and massacres. (pp. 156 – 157)
In the original account, after briefly talking about the activities of the OSO, Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı does indeed state that, “As these [activities] were seriously kept ‘secret’, they were even unknown to the members of the cabinet”. However, there are several problems with Akc¸am’s utilization and interpretation of the autobiographical account of Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı. First of all, in the original account there is no mention of any meeting regarding the Armenian relocation or massacres, nor is there any mention of the Armenians. Second, and more importantly, following the above sentence Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı relates that Talat Pasha too was among those cabinet members who were not informed of the activities of the OSO and had even complained about this matter:
As these [activities] were seriously kept “secret”, they were even unknown to the members of the cabinet. In fact, I remember very well that one day Talat Pasha in a half serious and half joking manner had asked me: “Es¸ref Beyefendi, is there any news about the government’s organization that you could share with us?” And he quietly whispered this in my ears lest others not hear. What were these activities that were regarded as so secret even to cause a person [Talat] who was, then, the Minister of the Interior and considered as the natural leader of the political party in power, to make it a matter of complaint in such a manner?34
In view of this information, Akc¸am’s utilization and interpretation of Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı’s statement and his efforts to establish a link between it and the massacres becomes highly problematic. Indeed if one is to accept Akc¸am’s false paraphrasing, then Akc¸am’s whole theory of “a genocidal policy under the supervision of Talat” collapses since Talat Pasha, the person whom he credits with being the overall coordinator of mas-sacres and deportations, is actually not informed on something that he allegedly super-vises. It is clear that the author Akc¸am deliberately ignores the context and misleads his readers. The intention of such a manipulation is to lead readers into what is, after all, a pre-arranged conclusion, at the expense of historic truth.
On Ahmet Refik
In discussing the participation of gangs in perpetrating the massacres, Taner Akc¸am writes that:
Ahmet Refik testified that the perpetrators of the massacres at Pozanti, some thirty to forty kilometers from Adana, were “reorganized by gangs sent to the Caucasus”. (p. 158)
To begin with, it should be noted that Ahmet Refik did not testify, but wrote a book. More importantly, in the book Ahmet Refik did not use the word massacre; rather, there is a single sentence referring to the assaults carried out by gangs without indicating whether they resulted in massacres or not:
The [place] which the Armenians were most particularly afraid of was Pozanti. There [in Pozanti], the attack of gangs was making their hearts tremble
[in fear]. Which gangs were these? These were the gangs sent to the Caucasus in the name of Turanian policy [and] the union of Islam by the Unionist government.35
It seems that the author feels no discomfort in substituting such words as “attack” and “massacre” and allowing his readers to make incorrect assumptions.
On Hu¨seyin and Abidin Nesimi
According to Akc¸am, in some cases the government officials who resisted obeying orders of annihilation were killed, and akaymakam’s son had confirmed this point:
In several cases, uncooperative officials were actually murdered. Hu¨ seyin Nesimi, the prefect of Lice, refused to obey the verbal order and asked for a written copy. He was fired, called to Diyarbakir, and murdered on the way. Abidin Nesimi, the prefect’s son, wrote that the liquidation of government offi-cials was ordered by Mehmet Res¸it, the governor of Diyarbakir, among others. The murdered include “Ferit, the governor-general of Basra, Bedri Nuri, the lieutenant-governor of Muntefak,. . .Sabit, the deputy prefect of Besiri, I˙smail Mestan a journalist.” The reason for these murders was clear: “The administra-tive cadre that opposed the massacre had to be liquidated. . .”. (pp. 166 – 167) Unfortunately it is not Abidin Nesimi but Taner Akc¸am who wrote that the government officials in question were liquidated on the orders of Mehmet Res¸it. What Abidin Nesimi had said36was that during Res¸it’s governorship some murders with unknown perpetra-tors had taken place:
. . .When Dr. Res¸it was in Iraq and later during his governorship of Diyarbakir, many murders with unknown perpetrators took place. Most important among them, were those of Ferit, the governor of Basra, Bedri Nuri, the sub-governor of Muntefak, my father Hu¨ seyin Nesimi, the prefect of Lice, and Sabit, the deputy prefect of Besiri and the journalist I˙smail Mestan. . .It was impossible to carry out the relocation of Armenians with the gendarme units composed of Circassians and the members of the tribes of Bedirhani, Milli, Karakec¸ili who were the Kurdish militia. For this group was a cadre of pillage and plunder. Therefore, this group could not carry out the relocation and turned it into a massacre. [And] the liquidation of the [administrative] cadre which would
oppose the pillage and plunderwas inevitable.37
As regards to the complicity of Mehmet Res¸it38in relation to the murder of his father, Abidin Nesimi wrote the following:
Did Dr. Res¸it give any orders for the murder of my father? Or did this event occur without his knowledge? We can find the answers of these questions in Res¸it’s memoirs. . .. In these [memoirs], Dr. Res¸it writes that he was extremely respectful towards my father and that my father had possessed the quality of rendering great services to the nation and that it was impossible for him to give orders for the murder of my father. Quite naturally I cannot be expected to have sympathies for Dr. Res¸it as my father was killed by a mobile gendarme regiment that was recalled by this name. I have made researches on Dr. Res¸it. I have inquired about Dr. Res¸it from his friends who had been in exile in Tripoli where he was also in exile and from other persons, especially from the governor
of Tripoli, Giritli Celal Bey. Both the deceased Cami Baykurt and Celal Bey had given testimony in his favor. I am of the opinion that Dr. Res¸it was a well-intentioned, yet narrow-minded person.39
There are two significant problems with the way in which this account has been utilized: 1. Akc¸am has altered the sentence that reads “the liquidation of the
[adminis-trative] cadre which would oppose the ‘pillage and plunder’ was inevitable” into a different sentence that states “the administrative cadre that opposed the ‘massacre’ had to be liquidated . . .”, which is yet another example demonstrating how freely the author is altering words and replacing them with his own insertions. As was the case in the Ahmet Refik instance, the author substituted the words “pillage and plunder” with his own word “massacre”.
2. Abidin Nesimi nowhere writes that the liquidation of the mentioned individ-uals and his father was done on the orders of Mehmet Res¸it. To the contrary, Abidin Nesimi points to a source giving the answer to this question and the source in question indicates something entirely contrary to Akc¸am’s allegation. Once again, Akc¸am has attributed a false opinion to a source that does not support his claims.
The Alleged Dual Mechanism
Akc¸am also makes some comments on the character of Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Interior Minister (pp. 169 – 170), which are intended to establish his argument that Talat’s tele-grams ordering the protection of Armenians were merely written for silencing foreign ambassadors and that these orders were subsequently cancelled by a coded cable, a process he termed as a dual mechanism.40 While Akc¸am attempts to explain those telegrams shown to the foreign ambassadors in the light of this argument, he is unable to explain numerous confidential and ciphered telegrams, not intended for public consumption, which contain similar instructions. And in order to explain away such inconveniences, the author’s theory is constructed upon selective use of sources and the manipulation of his sources.
According to Akc¸am, Falih Rıfkı Atay said that “sending an order only to cancel it shortly afterward by coded cable was business as usual for Talat” (p. 170). In this case the author displays another example of his going beyond the source he refers to, and adding interpretations that are not contained in the original source. The original account of this episode, related by Atay, while not suggesting in any way that this is a “business as usual for Talat”, makes no reference either to an “order” sent earlier:
One day, he [Talat] again called out for me from the office. There was an appli-cant [man] next to him. He said: “Write a letter to the Mutasarrıf [sub-governor] of I˙zmit andrecommendthem to definitely do the work of this Gentleman”.
I wrote and brought [the letter]. He signed it. The (poor) man took the letter and left by giving his thanks. A little later, they had told me that the minister [Talat] wanted to see me. I went [to see him]. He said: “write a ciphered telegram to the Mutasarrıf of I˙zmit and inform him that the letter I sent has no importance”.41 This is not quite the sort of evidence to substantiate such bold claims, and the readers might want to see more convincing evidence in order to accept the high-profile claims
Akc¸am has advanced about Talat with respect to the relocation of Armenians. In his enthusiasm to prove his theory of dual mechanism, Akc¸am further claims that:
On 18 September 1915 cables sent from Kayseri, Eskis¸ehir, Nig˘de, Diyarbakır, report that all the Armenians had been deported from these provinces and that none remained. (p. 177)
However, this is not at all the case in the documents to which Akc¸am refers. The telegram sent from Eskis¸ehir states that “the number of Armenians who wererequired to be dis-patchedamounted to 7000” and that all (7000) of these Armenians were dispatched,42 which does not mean that no Armenians remained and that all were deported from Eskis¸ehir.43 In the case of Kayseri, the telegram mentions the presence of 4911 Armenians, consisting of the soldiers’ families and, to a lesser extent, of Catholics and Protestants, who were left within the sanjak of Kayseri.44 It is again difficult to understand how any scrupulous author can claim that no Armenians were left in the mentioned places.
In conclusion, Akc¸am misrepresents his sources and the documents that he relies on do not substantiate his thesis. Thus the author’s case on the alleged dual mechanism remains poorly documented and unconvincing.
Akc¸am also creates misleading impressions on the reader by juxtaposing disparate events. For instance, he quotes from a report that mentions an official named Hu¨ seyin Kazım Bey who is said to be a good person trying to help and feed the Armenians, but faces difficulties from authorities and he fears the extermination of Armenians. Immediately after quoting this document, Akc¸am writes: “Hu¨ seyin Kazım . . . later wrote in his memoirs that 200,000 people were sacrificed to the evil designs of Government, in Lebanon alone” (p. 186). Yet Hu¨seyin Kazım’s statement had nothing to do with Ottoman Armenians. Still less it had anything to do with a central government policy. Hu¨seyin Kazım uses the statement above in describing the corruption of the provincial authorities that was rampant during the war:
There was a disgrace of silk corruption that no one can describe properly. The bales of silks, each of which amounted to 600 Lira (gold) in Germany and Switzerland, has been bought at 300 Lira from their owners by [exerting] all kinds of threats, pressures, swearwords and insults . . . To benefit from the misery of the people, to be full through the hunger of the poor, and to find life through their death has become a custom in the country. And those who first broke this ground had been the high officials of the Government. Then, it was seen that thousands of innocent men, women and children died every-where in the most terrible manner. In the unfortunate Lebanon alone, the number of those poor who fell victim to the evil designs of the government reaches to 150 – 200 thousand.45
By combining two totally unrelated events out of sequence, Akc¸am changes the meaning of the original account, and misleads his readers. It is also important to note that the number “150 – 200 thousand” in Hu¨seyin Kazım’s account has become simply “200,000” in Akc¸am’s text.
Conclusion
The examples displayed in this study cast doubt on Taner Akc¸am’s approach as being impartial and scholarly. To the contrary, such manipulations point to an extremely
partisan attitude, dominated by preconceived ideas that in turn have led the author to manipulate the sources he has utilized in service of his pre-arranged conclusions.
Akc¸am’s work suffers from a lack of honesty with which he has evidently approached his subject, and the implications of his intentional manipulations shed considerable light on the credibility that could be attached to his work. As Akc¸am himself stated elsewhere, “suspicion within the academic community as to whether or not sources have been honestly and accurately presented is something that can poison the entire scientific milieu”.46Within this framework, Taner Akc¸am’s dishonesty—which manifests itself in the form of numerous deliberate alterations and distortions, misleading quotations and doctoring of data—casts doubt on the accuracy of his claims as well as his conclusions. Accordingly, serious readers and researchers alike should approach Akc¸am’s work and claims with a great caution. This tainted volume can neither be considered “the state of the art in this field”, as Erik Jan Zu¨ rcher has written, nor the “best book ever written on Armenian Genocide”, as Stephen Feinstein claims, but as an example of poor editing, badly supported conclusions and, most importantly, of unethical and partisan scholarship that calls for further, more balanced and thorough research.
NOTES
1. Taner Akc¸am,I˙nsan Hakları ve Ermeni Sorunu, I˙ttihat ve Terakki’den Kurtulus¸ Savas¸ı’na[Human Rights
and the Armenian Question, from the [Committe of] Union and Progress to Liberation War], Ankara: I˙mge Kitabevi, 1999.
2. Edward J. Erickson, “Re-examining History: Armenian Massacres: New Records Undercut Old
Blame”,Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, Summer 2006, pp. 67 – 75; and Guenter Lewy,The
Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press, 2005, pp. 82 – 88.
3. Cemal Kutay,Birinci Du¨nya Harbinde Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa Ve Hayber’de Tu¨rk Cengi[The [Ottoman]
Special Organization in the WWI and the Turkish Battle in Khayber], I˙stanbul: Tarih Yayınları, 1962, pp. 17 – 18.
4. Nedim I˙pek,Rumeli’den Anadolu’ya Tu¨rk Go¨c¸leri (1877 – 1890)[The Turkish Migrations from Balkans to
Anatolia (1877 – 1890)], Ankara: Tu¨ rk Tarih Kurumu, 1994, p. 207.
5. Mustafa Aksakal, “Defending the Nation, The German-Ottoman Alliance of 1914 and the Ottoman Decision for War”, Unpublished PhD thesis, Princeton University, NJ, 2003, p. 150.
6. Ibid, p. 139.
7. Feroz Ahmad, “Review ofGermany and The Ottoman Empire 1914 – 1918, by Ulrich Trumpener”,
Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1970, pp. 104 – 105. Also see Michael A. Reynolds, “The Ottoman – Russian Struggle for Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus 1908– 1918: Identity, Ideology and the Geopolitics of World Order”, Unpublished PhD thesis, Princeton University, NJ, 2003.
8. Nejdet Bilgi,Yozgat Ermeni Tehciri Davası[The Trial for the Yozgat Armenian Relocation], I˙stanbul:
Kitabevi Yayınları, 2006, pp. 205 – 208, “Vakit Versiyonu” [“The Daily Vakit Version”] and pp. 208 – 211, “Yeni Gazete Versiyonu” [“The Daily Yeni Gazete Version”].
9. Ibid, pp. 202 – 205, “Memleket Versiyonu” [“The Daily Memleket Version”].
10. Sina Aks¸in, I˙stanbul Hu¨ku¨metleri ve Milli Mu¨cadele [The I˙stanbul Governments and the National
Struggle], Vol. 1, I˙stanbul: I˙s¸bankası Yayınları, 2004, p. 204; and Ferudun Ata,I˙s¸gal I˙stanbul’unda Tehcir Yargılamaları[The Relocation Trials in Occupied I˙stanbul], Ankara: Tu¨ rk Tarih Kurumu, 2005, pp. 141 – 142.
11. I˙rade-i Milliye, 2 October 1919, quoted in Hulki Cevizog˘lu,I˙s¸gal ve Direnis¸ 1919 ve Bugu¨n[The
Occu-pation and Resistance, 1919 and Today], I˙stanbul: Ceviz Kabug˘u Yayınları, 2007, p. 25.
12. Maurice Larcher,La Guerre Turque dans la Guerre Mondiale[Turkish War in the Great War], Paris:
Etienne Chiron; Berger-Levrault, 1926, p. 602: “L’anatolie avait en outre perdu 500,000 mussul-mans des vilayets orientaux, victimes ou fugitifs de la guerre; 800,000 Armeniens et 200,000 Grecs, victimes de deportations ou de´ce´de´s dans les battalions de travailleurs” [“Anatolia had also lost 500,000 Muslims from the eastern provinces as victims or fugitives of the war; 800,000
Armenians and 200,000 Greeks as victims of the deportations or those who died in the labor battalions”].
13. Yusuf Hikmet Bayur,Tu¨rk I˙nkılaˆbı Tarihi[The History of the Turkish Revolution], Vol. 3, Part 3, Ankara:
Tu¨ rk Tarih Kurumu, 1983, pp. 8 – 9.
14. Yusuf Hikmet Bayur,Atatu¨rk Hayatı ve Eseri[Atatu¨rk, His Life and Work], Vol. 1, Ankara: AKDTYK
Atatu¨ rk Aras¸tırma Merkezi, 1990, p. 182.
15. Lewy,The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey,op. cit., pp. 73 – 82; Ata,I˙s¸gal I˙stanbul’unda Tehcir
Yargılamaları[The Relocation Trials in Occupied I˙stanbul],op. cit.; Falih Rıfkı Atay,C¸ ankaya: Atatu¨rk’u¨n Dog˘umundan O¨ lu¨mu¨ne Kadar[C¸ ankaya, From Atatu¨rk’s Birth Till His Death], I˙stanbul: Bates¸, 1998, pp. 218 – 230.
16. Hu¨ samettin Ertu¨ rk,I˙ki Devrin Perde Arkası[Behind the Curtain of Two Eras], I˙stanbul: Hilmi Kitapevi,
1957, pp. 370 – 373.
17. Tarık Zafer Tunaya,Tu¨rkiye’de Siyasi Partiler[Political Parties in Turkey], Vol. 3, I˙stanbul: I˙letis¸im
Yayınları, 2000, p. 674.
18. Andrew Mango, “Minorities and Majorities”,Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1987, p. 519.
19. M. E. Yapp, “Review ofThe History of the Armenian Genocide, by V.N. Dadrian”,Middle Eastern
Studies, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1996, p. 397.
20. Atay,C¸ ankaya[C¸ ankaya],op. cit., pp. 219, 223 – 224.
21. Refik Halid Karay,Minelbab I˙lelmihrab[From Gate to Mihrab], I˙stanbul: I˙nkılaˆp-Aka Kitabevleri,
1964, pp. 195 – 196.
22. Ata, I˙s¸gal I˙stanbul’unda Tehcir Yargılamaları [The Relocation Trials in Occupied I˙stanbul], op. cit.,
pp. 258 – 259; Bayram Akc¸a, “1915 Ermeni Tehciri ve Urfa Mutasarrıfı Nusret Bey’in I˙damı” [“The 1915 Armenian Relocation and the Execution of Nusret Bey, the Sub-Governor of Urfa”], Ermeni Aras¸tırmaları 1. Tu¨rkiye Kongresi Bildirileri [Papers of the 1st Turkey Congress of Armenian Studies], Vol. 2, Ankara: ASAM, 2003, p. 28; and Bayram Akc¸a, “Mondros Mu¨ tarekesi’nden Sonra Ermeni Tehciri Nedeniyle Kurulan Divan-ı Harp Mahkemelerinde (Nemrut) Mustafa
Pas¸a’nın Rolu¨ ” [“The Role of (Nemrut) Mustafa Pasha in the Court-martials Set Up for the
Armenian Relocation After the Armistice of Mudros)”], Ermeni Aras¸tırmaları 2. Tu¨rkiye Kongresi
Bildirileri[Papers of the 2nd Turkey Congress of Armenian Studies], Vol. 1, Ankara: ASAM, 2007, p. 608.
23. Tu¨ rkkaya Atao¨v,Another Falsification: Statement (1926) Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Atatu¨rk,
Ankara: Sistem Ofset, 1988. For Mustafa Kemal’s views on the Armenian Question, see I˙smet
Go¨rgu¨ lu¨ ,Atatu¨rk’ten Ermeni Sorunu[The Armenian Question from Atatu¨rk], Ankara: Bilgi, 2002.
24. Kutay,Birinci Du¨nya Harbinde Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa[The [Ottoman] Special Organization in the WWI],
op. cit., p. 18: “Tu¨ rklerden gayrı ırk ve milletlerin ekseriyeti tes¸kil ettikleri yerlerde. . .”.
25. Akc¸am,I˙nsan Hakları ve Ermeni Sorunu[Human Rights and the Armenian Question],op. cit., p. 213:
“Mu¨ tareke sonrası, Sabah gazetesi 13 Aralık 1918’de Albay Seyfi’nin, Osmanlı Karargahındaki
Siyasi S¸ ube’nin sorumlusu olarak, Bahaettin S¸ akir ile yakın is¸birlig˘i ic¸inde, Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa
eliyle Ermenilerin katledilmesini planlayanlardan oldug˘unu ac¸ıkladı”.
26. Since the book under review is the English translation of another book, one might wonder whether it is the translator who is to be blamed for the manipulations and the discrepancies with original sources. However, the readers should be aware that the inaccuracies presented in this study are also present in the original Turkish version of Taner Akc¸am’s study.
27. Kutay,Birinci Du¨nya Harbinde Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa[The [Ottoman] Special Organization in the WWI],
op. cit., p. 60: “. . . Ege mıntıkasında ve bilhassa sahillerde yuvalanmıs¸ ve ku¨ melenmis¸ olan
1.150.000 Rum-Ermeni nu¨ fus, daha harbin bas¸lamasından kısa zaman evvel ve harbin ilk aylarında
ic¸eri alınmamıs¸ olsa idi, C¸ anakkale mu¨ dafaasının bile mu¨ mku¨ n olamıyacag˘ı gu¨ n gibi as¸ikar idi”.
28. The population figures given by Es¸ref Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı are as follows: “120,000 in the region of Ayvalik
gulf; 90,000 in the C¸ anakkale region (including the town itself); 190,000 in the capital of I˙zmir;
130,000 in the region from Urla peninsula and southeast Izmir to C¸ es¸me; 80,000 in the environs
of Aydın; 150,000 in the environs of Akhisar, and Manisa, Alas¸ehir, Us¸ak and its environs”. Apart from this, Kus¸c¸ubas¸ı also gives figures for the Aegean islands of Mtylene, Chios and Samos. However the Ottoman Empire had lost these islands in 1912 – 1913, therefore any
Ottoman-controlled population movement on these islands would be out of question. See Celal Bayar,Ben
de Yazdım: Milli Mu¨cadeleye Giris¸[I Too Have Written: Joining the National Struggle], Vol. 5, I˙stanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1967, p. 1576.
29. A. Mil, “Umumi Harpte Tes¸kilatı Mahsusa” [“The [Ottoman] Special Organization in the Great
War”], Vakit, No. 13, November 15, 1933, p. 5: “Erzurumdan c¸ıktıklarını s¸ifre ile bildirdig˘iniz
es¸has ic¸in tertibatı lazıme alınmıs¸tır. Herc¸ibadabat onları elde edebilmek ic¸in icap edenlere teslimat
verdim. . .Bu husus hakkında bir iki gu¨ ne kadar haber vereceg˘imi u¨ mit ediyorum. Kumandanlık tes¸kilatımızın serbestii harekatı hakkında icap edenlere talimatı lazıme vermelidir”. Arif Cemil, Birinci Du¨nya Savas¸ında Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa[The [Ottoman] Special Organization in WWI], I˙stanbul: Arba Yayınları, 1997, pp. 45 – 46. A. Mil is the pseudonym for Arif Cemil (Denker). His memoirs
were first published pseudonymously in theDaily Vakitin 1933 – 1934. In 1997 these memoirs
were republished byArba Yayınlarıin the form of a book under the real name of its author, Arif
Cemil (Denker). For readers’ convenience, both items are cited in this review.
30. Ibid, No. 14, November 16, 1933, p. 5: “Hilmi Bey’in mektubunda iki noktai nazarı dikkati celbeder.
Bunlardan birisi Erzurumdan hareketleri Bahaettin S¸ akir Bey tarafından bildirilen bazı es¸hasın yolda
yakalanmaları, daha dog˘rusu imha edilmeleri. . .” Arif Cemil,Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa[The [Ottoman]
Special Organization],op. cit., p. 46.
31. Ibid, No. 98, February 10, 1934, p. 5: “Doktor Bahattin S¸ akir bey I˙stanbul’da artık tes¸kilatı mahsu-sanın harici du¨s¸manlara taalluk eden is¸lerinden sarfınazar ederek memleketin dahili du¨s¸manlarıyla
mes¸gul olmıya karar vermis¸ti. C¸ u¨ nku¨ Doktor Bahaettin S¸ akir bey Erzurumda ve Kafkas cephesinin
dig˘er noktalarında gec¸irdig˘i do¨rt bes¸ ay zarfında pek c¸ok hakikatlere s¸ahit olmus¸tu. Ermenilerin
Tu¨ rkiye’ye kars¸ı takındıkları tavır ve Rus ordusuna ettikleri yardım kendisinde harici du¨ s¸man kadar
dahili du¨ s¸mandan da korkmak lazım geldig˘i kanaatını hasıl etmis¸ti. Dahildeki Ermeniler c¸ete tes¸kiliyle
ordumuzun arkasını tehdit ve hattı ric’atını kesmeye c¸alıs¸ıyorlardı”. Arif Cemil,Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa
[The [Ottoman] Special Organization],op. cit., p. 240.
32. Ibid, No. 100, February 12, 1934, p. 5: “. . .Doktor Bahaettin S¸ akir bey bunları I˙stanbul’da I˙ttihat ve
terakki merkezi umumisinin dikkati nazarına koyarak orduyu bu¨ yu¨ k bir tehlikeden kurtarmak ic¸in
alınacak tedbirleri mu¨ zakere ile mes¸gul bulunuyordu. Bu mu¨ zakereler nihayet tehcir kanunun nes¸ri
ile neticelenmis¸ti. Doktor Bahaettin S¸ akir bey bir mu¨ ddet sonra Kafkas cephesine avdet ettig˘i
zaman yeni vaziyet tamamiyle taayyu¨ n etmis¸ bulunuyordu. Fakat gene bu noktalara temas edemeden
gec¸eceg˘iz. C¸ u¨ nku¨ Ermenilerin tehciri meselesi tes¸kilatı mahsusa mevzuunun bu¨ sbu¨ tu¨ n haricinde
kalmaktadır”. Arif Cemil, Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa [The [Ottoman] Special Organization], op. cit.,
pp. 245 – 246.
33. Vahakn N. Dadrian, “Ottoman Archives and Denial of the Armenian Genocide”, inThe Armenian
Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics, ed. Richard Hovannisian, London: MacMillan, 1992, pp. 300 – 301.
34. Kutay,Birinci Du¨nya Harbinde Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa[The [Ottoman] Special Organization in the WWI],
op. cit., p. 18: “Bunlar gerc¸ekten, ,gizli. . tutuldug˘u ic¸in kabine azasının bile mec¸hulu¨ idiler.
Hatta c¸ok iyi hatırlarım. Bir gu¨ n Talat Pas¸a, yarı s¸aka yarı ciddi: ‘—Es¸ref Beyefendi . . .Sizin
hu¨ ku¨ met tes¸kilatından bize anlatabileceg˘iniz haberler yok mu?’ demis¸ti. Bunu da, dig˘erlerinin
duymaması ic¸in yavas¸c¸a kulag˘ıma so¨ylemis¸ti. O tarihte Daˆhiliye Nazırı ve iktidarda olan siyasi Fırka’nın tabii reisi sayılan bir zatın dahi, bo¨ylecesine sitem mevzuu yapacak kadar mahrem addedilen c¸alıs¸maları nelerdi?”
35. Ahmet Refik,I˙ki Komite I˙ki Kıtal[Two Committees, Two Massacres], Ankara: Kebikec¸ Yayınları, 1994,
pp. 38 – 39: “Ermenilerin en ziyade korktukları Pozantı idi. Orada, c¸etelerin hu¨ cumu kalblerini
titretiyordu. Bunlar hangi c¸etelerdi? I˙ttihat hu¨ ku¨ metinin Turan siyaseti, I˙slam ittihadı namına
Kafkasya’ya go¨nderdig˘i c¸etelerdi”.
36. In his memoirs, Abidin Nesimi also discusses the Armenian question—and his overall opinion is that the central committee of CUP wanted an orderly relocation of Armenians and did not want to harm the innocent Armenians, but the Kurdish militia forces seized this moment as an opportunity for plunder and massacre, and the CUP partly overlooked this situation but also attempted to punish the guilty. Given the sharp difference of this interpretation to the narrative of Akc¸am, the omission of these details also leaves the reader with quite an unbalanced opinion as regards the murder of
the officials mentioned as well as Abidin Nesimi’s opinion on this issue. See Abidin Nesimi,Yılların
I˙c¸inden[During the Years], I˙stanbul: Go¨ zlem, 1977, pp. 41 – 45.
37. Ibid, pp. 39 – 40: “Dr. Res¸it Irakta bulundug˘u do¨nemde ve daha sonra Diyarbakır valilig˘i sırasında faili bulunamayan birc¸ok cinayetler olmus¸tur. Bunların ic¸inde en o¨nemlileri Basra Valisi Ferit’in,
Mu¨ ntefek mutasarrıfı Bedi Nuri’nin, Lice kaymakamı babam Hu¨ seyin Nesimi’nin, Bes¸iri kaymakam
vekili Sabit’in, gazeteci I˙smail Mestan’ın vb. o¨ldu¨ ru¨ lmeleridir. . .Bu C¸ erkez jandarma ekibi ve milis
Ku¨ rtler olan Bedirhani, Milli ve Karakec¸ili as¸iretleri mensuplarıyla Ermeni tehcirinin
gerc¸ek-les¸tirilmesi imkaˆnsızdı. C¸ u¨ nku¨ bu kadro yag˘ma ve talan kadrosudur. Bu yu¨ zden bu kadro tehciri
yapamamıs¸ ve onu katliama do¨nu¨ s¸tu¨ rmu¨ s¸tu¨ r. Yag˘ma ve talanı gerc¸ekles¸tirmeye muhalefet edecek
kadronun da tasfiyesi kac¸ınılmazdı”.
38. This article primarily aims to focus on the manner in which Akc¸am has utilized his sources. Therefore the role and the responsibility of Dr. Res¸it is beyond the scope of this study. On this matter, see
Mithad S¸ u¨ kru¨ Bleda,I˙mparatorlug˘un C¸ o¨ku¨s¸u¨[The Fall of the [Ottoman] Empire], I˙stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1979, pp. 56 – 59.
39. Abidin Nesimi,Yılların I˙c¸inden[During the Years],op. cit., pp. 45 – 46: “Babamın o¨ldu¨ ru¨ lmesi olayında
Dr. Res¸it’in bir emri var mıdır? Yoksa bu olay onun bilgisi dıs¸ında mı olmus¸tur? Bu soruların cevabını
Dr. Res¸it’in ‘Mu¨ dafaaname’ sinden o¨g˘renebiliriz. . .Bu ‘Mu¨ dafaaname’ sinde Dr. Res¸it, babama kars¸ı
son derece hu¨ rmetkar oldug˘unu, vu¨ cudunun millete bu¨ yu¨ k faydalar bırakacag˘ı nitelikte oldug˘unu,
onun o¨ldu¨ ru¨ lmesine emir vermesinin imkansız oldug˘unu yazmıs¸tır. Pek dog˘aldır ki, babamın bu
adla anılan seyyar jandarma mu¨ frezesince o¨ldu¨ ru¨ ldu¨ g˘u¨ ic¸in Dr. Res¸it’e kars¸ı sempatim olamaz.
Dr. Res¸it u¨ zerine aras¸tırmalar yaptım. Dr. Res¸it’i su¨ rgu¨ n bulundug˘u Trablusgarb’daki su¨ rgu¨ n
arkada-s¸larından ve dig˘er kis¸ilerden, o¨zellikle Trablusgarb valisi Giritli Celal Bey den sorus¸turdum. Rahmetli Cami Baykurt da, Celal Bey de onun lehinde s¸ahadette bulunmus¸lardır. Dr. Res¸it’in iyi niyetli fakat
dar go¨ru¨ s¸lu¨ birisi oldug˘u kanısındayım”.
40. Guenter Lewy also characterizes the evidence presented by Taner Akc¸am for his allegation of dual
mechanism as “slim”; see Lewy,The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey,op. cit., p. 112.
41. Falih Rıfkı Atay,Zeytindag˘ı [The Olive Mountain], I˙stanbul: Bates¸, 1981, pp. 24 – 25: “Bir gu¨ n
yine kalemden c¸ag˘ırtmıs¸tı. Yanında bir mu¨ racaatc¸ı vardı: ‘I˙zmit mutasarrıfına bir mektup yazınız,
Beyfendinin is¸ini mutlaka yapmasını tavsiye ediniz’, demis¸ti. Yazıp go¨tu¨ rdu¨ m. I˙mzaladı, adamcag˘ız
mektubu aldı ve tes¸ekku¨ r ederek gitti. Biraz sonra nazırın yine beni istedig˘ini so¨ylediler. Gittim:
—I˙zmit mutasarrıfına bir s¸ifre yaz. Go¨nderdig˘im mektubun bir ehemmiyeti yoktur, diye bildir, dedi”. 42.Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915 – 1920)[Armenians in Ottoman Documents 1915 – 1920], Ankara:
Devlet Ars¸ivleri Genel Mu¨ du¨ rlu¨ g˘u¨ , 1995, p. 96, Document 111: “Livaˆ daˆhilindeki Ermenilerden
ihraˆcı ıˆcaˆb edenler yedi bin raˆddesinde olup kaˆffesinin sevk edilmis¸ oldug˘u arz olunur”.
43. The official Ottoman statistics cite the Armenian population of Eskis¸ehir as 8807, while according to the figures adopted by the British it was 10,000; for the comparative figures, see Meir Zamir,
“Population statistics of the Ottoman empire in 1914 and 1919”,Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 17,
No. 1, 1981, pp. 100, 104.
44.Osmanlı Belgelerinde Ermeniler (1915 – 1920)[Armenians in Ottoman Documents 1915 – 1920],op. cit.,
p. 94, Document 109: “. . .daˆhil-i livaˆda kalan do¨rt bin dokuz yu¨ z on bir neferi asker aˆ’ilesi ve
cu¨ z’ıˆ mikdaˆrı Protestan ve Katolik bakaˆyaˆsı olmakla dahi yu¨ zde bes¸ nisbetinde ko¨ylere tevzıˆ’
kılınmakta oldug˘u ma’ruˆ zdur”.
45. Hu¨ seyin Kazım Kadri,Tu¨rkiye’nin C¸ o¨ku¨s¸u¨[The Fall of Turkey], I˙stanbul: Hikmet 1992, pp. 204 – 205:
“Bir ipek yolsuzlug˘u rezaleti vardı ki bunu hakkıyla tasvire kimse muvaffak olamaz. Almanya’da ve
I˙svic¸re’de altın para ile 600 yu¨ z lira tutan her bir balya ipek sahiplerinin elinden bin bir tu¨ rlu¨ tehditler,
tazyikler, ku¨ fu¨ r ve hakaretler ile 300 kaˆg˘ıda alındı. . .Halkın sefaletinden yararlanmak, fukaranın
ac¸lıg˘ıyla doymak, o¨lu¨ mu¨ yle hayat bulmak, memlekette alıs¸kanlık halini aldı. Ve bu c¸ıg˘ırı ac¸an
hu¨ ku¨ metin bu¨ yu¨ k memurları oldu. O zaman her tarafta binlerce gu¨ nahsız adamların, kadınların ve
c¸ocukların en feci halde du¨ s¸u¨ p o¨ldu¨ kleri go¨ru¨ ldu¨ . Yalnız s¸u bedbaht Lu¨ bnan’da hu¨ ku¨ metin suikastına kurban giden zavallıların sayısı 150 – 200 bine c¸ıkar”.
46. Taner Akc¸am, “Anatomy of a Crime: The Turkish Historical Society’s Manipulation of Archival
Documents”,Journal of Genocide Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2005, p. 273.
